J Syst Sci Syst Eng ISSN: 1004-3756 (Paper) 1861-9576 (Online)

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11518-018-5360-1 CN11-2983/N

MODELING THE KNOWLEDGE CREATION PROCESS OF

GRADUATE RESEARCH

J. Sun1 J. Tian2 V.N. Huynh1 Y. Nakamori1

1School of Knowledge Science, Japan Advanced Institute of Science and Technology, Ishikawa, Japan
nakamori@jaist.ac.jp ()
2School of Computer Science and Technology, Wuhan University of Technology, Wuhan, China
jtian@whut.edu.cn

Abstract
Graduate students who are beginning academic research want to learn how to create and verify new
knowledge in their research. Their supervisors, on the other hand, are seeking appropriate research
environments including effective research guidance methods. In order to meet these demands, this paper
proposes a knowledge creation model that supports the objectives of both graduate students and their
supervisors. This is an academic knowledge creation model for individuals supported by a group and its
origin can be traced back to a famous organizational knowledge creation model. Since this type of model
is constructed from empirical knowledge, it is not easy to prove its objective significance. But, this paper
tries to show the effectiveness of the proposed model as an initial stage of model validation based on a
questionnaire survey of students in a graduate school in China.
Keywords: Knowledge creation model, graduate students, research ability, research environment

1. Introduction young students with critical thinking, quantitative

The university plays an important role in
knowledge creation and dissemination, providing
a knowledge intensive environment in which
young students are enhancing their knowledge
creation abilities. While there are many studies to
promote knowledge creation and knowledge
sharing in universities (for instance, Tian &
Nakamori 2006; Roger et al. 2013), some
negative opinions have also been reported. For
instance, universities are failing to play a vital
role in creating and transmitting scientific
knowledge, and they are also failing to provide
reasoning, and research skills (Danate & Canales
2012; Twigg 1994).
Taking this situation into consideration, this
paper focuses on the creation and verification of
knowledge when graduate students prepare
dissertations. A graduate school organization is
required to be a system for effectively creating
knowledge; however, for a system that includes
the human beings as elements, the performance
varies depending on the members’ experience-
based knowledge and the environment to support
them. Therefore, it is important to properly

 Systems Engineering Society of China and Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany 2018

 Sun et al.: Modeling the Knowledge Creation Process of Graduate Research
2 J Syst Sci Syst Eng
evaluate the students’ research abilities and the
prepared research environment, thereby
exploring better system directions.
Much research has been conducted on the
educational method and its evaluation at
universities from various approaches, but this
research focuses on knowledge management,
especially evaluation methods based on
knowledge creation models. After the proposal of
an organizational knowledge creation model
called the SECI model (Nonaka & Takeuchi
1995), the idea of knowledge management spread
into the field of education in order to better
manage tangible and intangible knowledge assets
of teachers in schools.
Many studies related to this topic have been
reported from East Asia countries (e.g., Carroll et
al. 2003; Wang & Jia 2005; Yeh 2005; Hamid
2008; Zhao 2010; Leung 2010; Chu, Wang &
Yuen 2011; Cheng 2012). Studies that have
examined the SECI model in educational contexts
include those by Joia (2002), and Wu, Lee & Shu
(2013). They analyzed the strengths and
weaknesses of the SECI model in teacher training
and knowledge transfer.
On the other hand, the knowledge creation
model of graduate students in universities or
young researchers in research institutes has not
been attracting much attention, although their
primary tasks are knowledge creation and
verification (or validation).
To our knowledge, the three academic
knowledge creation models proposed by
Wierzbicki & Nakamori (2006) are the first ones
to describe the knowledge creation process of
individual research in various fields. And studies
proposing other academic knowledge creation
models of similar type are not found.
Based on the model of Nonaka & Takeuchi
(1995) and the above three models, this paper
proposes a research process model that is a
guideline for research promotion for graduate
students. The historical background leading to the
proposal of the new model will be described in
Section 2. The purpose of this model is to provide
guidelines for graduate students to make efforts
to enhance their own research abilities and to
make the provided research environment
worthwhile. For this reason, a question list for
evaluating research ability and research
environment will be attached to this model. The
details of the model will be explained in Section
3 and the question list will be introduced in
Section 4.
The questionnaire survey using the above
question list is meaningful for participating
graduate students to promote their research
ability and for supervisors to improve the
research environment. Furthermore, we can see
the difference between a personal evaluation of
ability and an objective assessment against the
environment due to differences in experiences,
differences in fields, etc.
This paper reports, in Section 5, the analysis
results of the data investigated in a certain
graduate school in China. The paper highlights
the differences in their evaluations due to the
differences in future career paths as well as
research fields, and also clarifies the stages of the
research process during which the students
struggle.
Using such discoveries, the effectiveness of
the proposed model and the question list will be
demonstrated in Section 6 and 7, although it is
necessary to continue the validation of the
proposed model in the future.
Sun et al.: Modeling the Knowledge Creation Process of Graduate Research
J Syst Sci Syst Eng
Figure 1 Three academic knowledge creation models (Wierzbicki & Nakamori 2006)
2. Academic Knowledge Creation
Models
The most famous organizational knowledge
creation model is the SECI model proposed by
Nonaka & Takeuchi (1995), which suggests that
knowledge is created through four processes:
Socialization, Externalization, Combination, and
Internalization. New knowledge is created while
explicit knowledge and tacit knowledge are
alternatively converted and exchanged between
individuals and a group. For the purpose of this
study, the SECI model cannot be used directly as
this research deals with knowledge creation by
individuals supported by a group.
Some studies on knowledge creation practice
among school leaders and educators have been
reported under the influence of the SECI model
(e.g., Bereiter 2002; Harris 2008). As studies
related to the theme of this paper, knowledge
creation in research (e.g., Knorr-Cetina 1999) and
knowledge creation in education (e.g.,
Scardamalia & Bereiter 1999, 2006) have been
argued in parallel. This paper aims to develop a
knowledge creation model in the integrated
domain of these two studies, since graduate
school researches inevitably include both
educational and research perspectives.
3
In this context, the following three models
were proposed by Wierzbicki & Nakamori (2006).
These three models are the inter-subjective EDIS
spiral, the experimental EEIS spiral, and the
hermeneutic EAIR spiral. These spirals begin
with having an idea, called “Enlightenment”
(illumination, aha, or eureka), as shown in Fig.1.
The first one called EDIS (Enlightenment,
Debate, Immersion, and Selection) spiral
emphasizes “Debate” (discussions in a group
about research underway). Unlike the SECI
model, this creative model is aimed at the
individual creation of scientific and technological
knowledge supported by a group. No knowledge
is lost during all these processes and each process
can add new perspectives, ideas, or insights,
contributing to “Enlightenment” on the next
spiral repetition. Thus, this model guarantees
knowledge creation depending on the situation.
It is necessary to extend the EDIS spiral to
represent the situation when the verification of a
new idea occurs not through “Debate” but
through “Experiment.” The EEIS (Enlightenment,
Experiment, Interpretation, and Selection) spiral
emphasizes “Experiment” (test of ideas and
hypotheses by experimental research). In fact, the
process “Experiment” simply represents
 Sun et al.: Modeling the Knowledge Creation Process of Graduate Research
4 J Syst Sci Syst Eng
experimental research – the verification of an
idea, not necessarily of an already formed theory.
However, every researcher with experimental
experience knows that raw experimental data do
not provide much new knowledge. Their
“Interpretation” is necessary in the sense of the
immersion of experimental data based on their
experience.
The hermeneutic circle describes the relation
of a researcher to the object of his/her study
represented by historical or literary texts, objects
of art, etc. In this relation, the researcher must
immerse himself/herself in the time and culture
represented by the objects of the study and use
empathic reflection based on the traditions of
discipline. The EAIR (Enlightenment, Analysis,
Hermeneutic Immersion, and Reflection) spiral
emphasizes “Hermeneutic Immersion,” which is
related to collecting scientific information and
knowledge from the literature and other sources,
and interpreting and reflecting on these materials.
Tian et al. (2009) examined these models in a
graduate university (Japan Advanced Institute of
Science and Technology, called JAIST) and
found that young researchers of information
science and materials science have universal
difficulties in doing research, including acquiring
necessary knowledge and forming an idea,
conducting experiments, as well as participating
in further debate and discussion.
Sun et al. (2016) examined the above three
models by interviewing graduate students and
their supervisors in the School of Knowledge
Science at JAIST, and found similar difficulties
reported in Tian et al. (2009). This school consists
of three basic fields, which are management
science, information science, and systems science.
Sun et al. (2016) assumed that the models in Fig.1
could represent the research processes in these
three areas, respectively.
From the survey, they discovered:
• Students of all fields are very poor at
performing the process “Enlightenment.” The
processes “Immersion” and “Interpretation”
are not effectively used in all fields. These
processes are treated differently depending on
the respective fields.
• There is a knowledge gap and a strategic gap
between professors and students. Knowledge
gap refers to the gap between what you must
know and what you know, and strategic gap
refers to the gap between what you must do
and what you can do (Zack 2002). The factors
of the gaps are lack of previous experience-
based knowledge, knowledge accumulation
sensibility, presentation skills, and awareness
of the research support environment.
Based on the opinions of graduate students
and their supervisors reported in Sun et al. (2016),
this paper proposes an integrated knowledge
creation model that can be utilized in any field of
research, which adopts the following ideas:
• It is better to use the same four nodes used in
the SECI model, which indicate four types of
knowledge: the individual tacit knowledge,
the individual explicit knowledge, the group
tacit knowledge, and the group explicit
knowledge.
• Most importantly, it is necessary to deal
differently with the different stages of
research: the planning stage, the execution
stage, and the achievement presentation stage.
From these considerations, this paper proposes a
new model in the next section.
Sun et al.: Modeling the Knowledge Creation Process of Graduate Research
J Syst Sci Syst Eng
Figure 2 Three-stage EDIS spiral as an academic knowledge creation model
3. Three-Stage EDIS Spiral
This section proposes a knowledge creation
and verification (or validation) model called the
three-stage EDIS spiral as shown in Fig.2. The
roles of three stages are described below:
Stage 1 (the first lap of the spiral) explains the
processes of formulating a research proposal.
Here, students are required to perform a massive
literature review and deep discussions with
supervisors in order to determine the research
goals and contents with confidence. The second
process of Stage 1: “Discussion” of the research
plan in the laboratory is quite important to write
a meaningful research plan.
Stage 2 (the second lap of the spiral) explains
the processes of conducting the research.
Students are required to select suitable
methodologies to achieve the purpose of the
5
study before performing the second process of
Stage 2: “Development,” the main part of the
research, which also includes presentation of the
research results in the laboratory or at the school
to improve the research.
Stage 3 (the third lap of the spiral) explains
the processes of publishing research results.
Students are required to write and present papers
to make members of the academic society
understand their research. The second process of
Stage 3 is the “Dissemination” of the research
results.
Within these three stages, new ideas can be
created, developed, and published. Both
knowledge creation processes (in the process 1
and 2) and validation processes (in the process 3
and 4) are included in the model.
Our preliminary investigation made it clear
 Sun et al.: Modeling the Knowledge Creation Process of Graduate Research
6 J Syst Sci Syst Eng
that graduate students are poor at two processes:
“Enlightenment” and “Immersion,” which are
related to the interaction between tacit knowledge
and explicit knowledge. In order to enhance
“Enlightenment,” students must use “External
Information” as much as possible. “Immersion”
can be used differently depending on the research
field:
• Intersubjective immersion in the fields of
social sciences and management;
• Interpretive immersion in the fields of natural
sciences and technologies;
• Hermeneutic immersion in the fields of
humanities (literature, philosophy, aesthetics,
etc.).
The details of processes of each stage are
given below.
3.1 Stage 1 of the three-stage EDIS Spiral
Process 1-1 (Enlightenment) Based on
experience-based knowledge, together with new
information, the student finds the direction of
new research and writes a research plan. This
process is quite difficult for a student who is a
beginner of research. Appropriate guidance is
necessary for him/her to write a research plan.
Process 1-2 (Discussion) The student must
explain his/her research proposal to his/her
supervisors, seniors, and colleagues at a seminar
in the laboratory.
Process 1-3 (Immersion) In an ideal situation,
supervisors, seniors, and colleagues consider the
presented research plan as if it is their own
research plan and express their opinions based on
their deep understanding of the research plan. The
success of this process is not easy because people
usually do not have incentive to deeply consider
plans of other persons.
Process 1-4 (Selection) The student must
examine opinions given by the supervisors or
seniors in order to modify the research plan or
proceed to the actual research.
3.2 Stage 2 of the three-stage EDIS spiral
Process 2-1 (Enlightenment) Accepting the
suggestion of the supervisors, the student writes
an improved, concrete research plan to perform
the actual research. The student has to study
various research methodologies before doing
research, such as literature review, computer
simulation, data mining, questionnaire survey,
chemical experiment, etc., depending on the
research area.
Process 2-2 (Development) Here the student
performs his/her research carefully. This is,
actually, the main process of the research. The
student does not stay in this process until the end
of the research; instead, he/she will proceed to the
next process with the partial progress of the
research and come back to this process with a
better idea as to how to perform the research.
Process 2-3 (Immersion) When the research
reaches a certain conclusion, the student presents
the result in the laboratory or at the school.
He/she must show it passionately, but also
logically, so that the supervisors are willing to
give a lot of useful suggestion to improve the
research.
Process 2-4 (Selection) To understand and
acknowledge advice, the student must know the
principles of research evaluation. He/she must
reflect whether the research is novel, useful, or
reproducible. He/she must understand that the
evaluation is a part of the research. He/she must
study the methods of evaluating research, such as
falsification tests, intersubjective discussion, etc.
Sun et al.: Modeling the Knowledge Creation Process of Graduate Research
J Syst Sci Syst Eng
3.3 Stage 3 of the three-stage EDIS Spiral
Process 3-1 (Enlightenment) The third stage
starts with the planning to write an academic
paper. Here, the student must learn how to write
academic papers.
Process 3-2 (Dissemination) The student
must disseminate his/her research results to the
public by submitting a paper to a journal or
proposing a presentation at a conference.
Process 3-3 (Immersion) The student must
answer, with full effort, opinions of the reviewers
of his/her paper, or questions at a conference.
This is extremely important to make the research
better.
Process 3-4 (Selection) In this final process,
the student must deeply reflect on the current
research and try to discover the next new
challenge.
4. List of Questions
Summarizing, the model has three stages with
each stage having four processes. For each of
these stages/processes, four questions are asked,
for a total of 48 questions on the survey (i.e., 3
stages × 4 processes × 4 questions). The first two
questions, relating to self-evaluation, rate the
“ability of the student” and the “importance of
student ability.” The second two questions rate
the “quality of the research environment” and the
“necessity of research environment” to the
stage/process. Additionally, the respondents are
asked to explain what to do if the evaluation
reflects a low rating but its corresponding
importance/necessity is high.
Thus, questions were derived from the model
to evaluate students’ abilities and the quality of
research environments to perform the creative
processes. Two examples are given below:
7
4.1 Stage 1: Ability of Enlightenment
(1-E-A)
A) Are you satisfied with your ability to plan
your research? (Do you have a lot of ideas
and experience to make your research plan?)
B) Do you think this ability is important for you?
• If your answer is “dissatisfied” but
“important,” what would you like to do? Or
what should you do specifically?
• If your answer is “unimportant,” write the
reason.
4.2 Stage 1: Environment for
Enlightenment (1-E-E)
A) When preparing your research plan, do you
receive sufficient guidance from your
supervisors or senior researchers? (Do you
have a good environment in your lab (in the
university) to make a research plan?)
B) Do you think this environment is necessary
for you?
• If your answer is “insufficient” but
“necessary,” what would you like to ask your
supervisors or university?
• If your answer is “unnecessary”, write the
reason.
4.3 Other Questions
The rest of questions will be given in
Appendix. The total number of questions is 48 as
summarized in Table 1. The numbers 1 to 5 in the
above tables reflect the responses: 1: Strongly
dissatisfied; 2: Dissatisfied; 3: Neither; 4:
Satisfied; and 5: Strongly satisfied.
 Sun et al.: Modeling the Knowledge Creation Process of Graduate Research
8 J Syst Sci Syst Eng

Table 1 Types of questions with five-grade evaluation (3 stages × 16 questions)

D*** = Discussion (Stage 1); Development (Stage 2); Dissemination (Stage 3)

Abi. = Research ability; Env. = Research environment
Sat. = Satisfied; Imp. = Important; Suf. = Sufficient; Nec. = Necessary

5. Questionnaire Survey Beijing. These participants are MSc and doctoral

In order to confirm the effectiveness of the
model, a questionnaire survey was conducted
using the above questionnaire. The survey
participants consist of graduate students who
attended the class of Knowledge Systems
Methodology in the 2016 summer semester at
University of Chinese Academy of Sciences,
students from all over China. Although there
were more than 100 respondents, this study uses
only the responses of the MSc students, as the
number of doctoral students was small. The total
number of valid responses was 90. Attributes of
the respondents are given in Table 2. Half of the
students are desiring to become researchers.

Table 2 Attributes of the respondents (90 MSc students)

Sun et al.: Modeling the Knowledge Creation Process of Graduate Research
J Syst Sci Syst Eng 9

6. Validation of the Model The average scores of the importance and

Since the three-stage EDIS spiral is an
experience-based model, we cannot verify it like
a mathematical model. Regardless, we should
validate, or at least justify, the model by applying
it to many cases. If the majority of respondents
accepted the importance and necessity of all
processes of the model, we can conclude that the
proposed model was validated (or justified) by
the participants in the survey.
necessity of the three stages, which are all close
to Grade 5, are shown in Table 3. The smallest
value is 4.54 at “Necessity of Immersion.” From
this table, it can be concluded that this model is
accepted by the majority of respondents. But, the
importance and necessity of “Immersion” might
not be fully accepted. The following hypothesis
is considered a null hypothesis, hoping that the
alternative hypothesis is not accepted.

Table 3 Average scores of importance and necessity

Discussion  (Stage 2) Development; (Stage 3) Dissemination

Hypothesis H1: As this is an important issue related to knowledge

• Four processes of each stage are important to
the same extent.
• Four processes of each stage are necessary to
the same extent.
Table 4 shows the result of the statistical
hypothesis test. There is a significant difference
at the 5% level in “Importance of Ability” in
Stage 2. This is understandable since some
students want to conduct research without
consulting with their supervisors and colleagues.
creation in the social dimension, reconsideration
from the educational viewpoint is a major
challenge.
The null hypothesis was not rejected in other
places. Therefore, we can conclude that four
processes of each stage are equally important and
necessary. However, for the success of the
research, the importance and necessity of
“Immersion” must be explained to graduate
students as well as their supervisors.

Table 4 One-way analysis of means (not assuming equal variances)

 Sun et al.: Modeling the Knowledge Creation Process of Graduate Research
10 J Syst Sci Syst Eng

7. Exploring the Differences Hypothesis H2:

Assuming that the three-stage EDIS spiral • There is no significant difference in the
effectively describes the research processes for average scores of “Ability” and “Environment”
graduate students, we will analyze the following: for the respective processes due to the
• Differences in evaluation due to the experience of writing academic papers.
difference in experience and future career; Hypothesis H3:
• Difficulty of “Enlightenment” to perform; and • There is no significant difference in the
• Differences in evaluation due to the average scores of “Ability” and “Environment”
difference in research field. for the respective processes due to the desired
career path.
7.1 Differences in evaluation due to the Figure 3 shows the differences in evaluation
difference in experience and future due to the writing experience (the left-hand-side)
career and dues to the desired career path (the right-
The following two hypotheses are examined: hand-side).

Paper-Ability = Evaluation of ability by those who have experience of writing papers.

No Paper-Ability = Evaluation of ability by those who have no experience of writing papers.
Paper-Environment = Evaluation of environment by those who have experience of writing papers.
No Paper-Environment = Evaluation of environment by those who have no experience of writing papers.
Academic-Ability = Evaluation of ability by those who wish to work in the academic world.
Business-Ability = Evaluation of ability by those who wish to work in the business world.
Academic-Environment = Evaluation of environment by those who wish to work in the academic world.
Business-Environment = Evaluation of environment by those who wish to work in the business world.
1E = Stage 1: Enlightenment; 2E = Stage 2: Enlightenment; 3E = Stage 3: Enlightenment, etc.

Figure 3 Differences in evaluation due to the writing experience (left) and due to the desired career path (right)
Sun et al.: Modeling the Knowledge Creation Process of Graduate Research
J Syst Sci Syst Eng 11

From Fig.3, we can conclude: A) There is no significant difference in the

• We should accept Hypothesis H2: There is no average scores of “Ability” for the
significant difference in the average scores of respective processes due to the desired
“Ability” and “Environment” due to the career path.
experience of writing academic papers. B) There is no significant difference in the
• Those who wish to be researchers gave lower average scores of “Environment” for the
evaluations than those who wish to work for respective processes due to the desired
companies or the government. career path.
We carried out the t-test for Hypothesis H3: Table 5 and Table 6 show the results of t-test.

Table 5 Welch two sample t-test for Null Hypothesis H3 A)

Discussion  (Stage 2) Development; (Stage 3) Dissemination

Table 6 Welch two sample t-test for Null Hypothesis H3 B)

Discussion  (Stage 2) Development; (Stage 3) Dissemination

From these we can conclude:
A) There are significant differences in the self-
evaluation of “Ability” between two groups in
Stage 2: “Development” and Stage 3:
“Enlightenment.” It is apparent that the scores
by those who wish to be researchers are low.
B) There are no significant differences in the
evaluation of “Environment” at all places, but
from Fig. 3, we can see that the scores given
by those who wish to work outside
universities after graduation are reflected
higher satisfaction. It should be noted that
there are almost statistically significant
differences in the evaluation of “Environment”
at Stage 2: “Selection” and Stage 3:
“Enlightenment.”
 Sun et al.: Modeling the Knowledge Creation Process of Graduate Research
12 J Syst Sci Syst Eng

7.2 Difficulty of “Enlightenment” This hypothesis was tested by calculating the

Figure 3 shows that the scores of “Ability of
Enlightenment” in all three stages are low. This
means that most graduate students consider it
difficult to generate a research idea, plan research
implementation, and announce it. Here, the
following hypothesis is tested:
Hypothesis H4:
• If the score of “Ability of Enlightenment” is
high, the scores of “Ability” for the other
processes are also high.
correlation coefficients using all the individual
scores of respondents. Table 7 shows the
correlation coefficients between abilities of
“Enlightenment”, “Discussion”, “Immersion”,
and “Selection.” From this table, we can conclude
that this hypothesis is accepted weakly. For
reference, the correlation coefficients between
“Ability” and “Environment” are shown in Table
8, which shows that they might not actually be
correlated.

Table 7 Correlation coefficients between “Abilities” in respective stages

Table 8 Correlation coefficients between “Ability” and “Environment” in respective stages

Sun et al.: Modeling the Knowledge Creation Process of Graduate Research
J Syst Sci Syst Eng 13

Figure 4 The average scores of “Ability” and “Importance” (the left-hand-side) and the average scores of
“Environment” and “Necessity” (the right-hand-side) in the respective research fields

7.3 Differences in Evaluation due to the
Difference in Research Fields
This section tries to explore the differences in
evaluation due to the difference in research fields
of respondents. Two null hypotheses are set as
follows:
Hypothesis H5:
• Scores of abilities of respective processes are
similar in different fields.
Hypothesis H6:
• Scores of environments of respective
processes are similar in different fields.
Before performing the statistical test, let us
explore the differences visually. Figure 4 shows
the average scores of “Ability” and “Importance”
(the left-hand-side) and the average scores of
“Environment” and “Necessity” (the right-hand-
side) in the respective research fields.
Looking at Fig.4, we recognize that:
• The gaps between the scores of “Ability” and
“Importance” are quite large at about 2 points;
on the other hand, the gaps between the scores
of “Environments” and “Necessity” are about
1 point.
• The scores of “Ability of Enlightenment” in
all stages are quite low. Students want to
develop this ability. The scores of “Ability of
Development” in Stage 2 are relatively low in
all fields. Students want to develop the ability
of implementing actual research.
• The scores given by students are relatively
low for social sciences than for other fields.
Here, we carried out the statistical test only
for “Enlightenment.” Table 9 shows the result of
the variance analysis. From this, we see that only
the scores of “Ability of Enlightenment” in Stage
3 are different significantly in three fields, as
expected from Fig. 4.
 Sun et al.: Modeling the Knowledge Creation Process of Graduate Research
14
Table 9 One-way analysis of means (not assuming equal variances)
8. Conclusion
The theme of this paper was the development
of a knowledge creation model for graduate
students to enhance their research ability and
environment. The model was proposed by
improving the academic knowledge creation
models by Wierzbicki & Nakamori (2006), which
were inspired by the very famous organizational
knowledge creation model by Nonaka &
Takeuchi (1995).
The proposed model is called the three-stage
EDIS spiral, suggesting the knowledge creation
and verification processes at the planning stage,
the execution stage, and the presentation stage of
research. Based on this model, this paper
proposed a list of questions for evaluating the
research promotion ability of students and the
research support environment offered to students.
Research evaluation is generally done from a
broader perspective, but this paper focused on the
emergence of knowledge creation in the graduate
school system, as it is one of the system’s key
goals. In particular, this paper emphasized the
mutual cooperation between students and faculty
members and the interaction between explicit
knowledge and tacit knowledge in the system.
This paper reported the results of a
questionnaire survey using the question list.
Although the scale and scope of the survey target
J Syst Sci Syst Eng
cannot be said to be sufficient, we are convinced
that the survey supported the significance and
usefulness of the proposed model.
The significance of the model was judged
based on how much respondents perceive the
importance and necessity of each process of the
model. Through the responses of students and a
hypothesis test, this paper concluded that the
three-stage EDIS spiral was accepted by the
majority of graduate students who participated in
the survey.
However, the importance and necessity of the
process “Immersion” must be explained to
graduate students as well as their supervisors for
the success of the research. This is actually an
important issue related to the knowledge creation
and verification (or validation) in the social
dimension, in which students must utilize the
knowledge of others as much as possible.
The effectiveness of the model was clarified
by the fact that some problems faced by
respondents were highlighted. For example,
respondents were aware that, to perform the
“Enlightenment” process in the first and third
stages, ability was generally weak.
We formulate the following hypothesis: If a
respondent’s score of “Ability of Enlightenment”
is high, his/her score for other “Abilities” will
also be high. Based on correlation analysis, we
Sun et al.: Modeling the Knowledge Creation Process of Graduate Research
J Syst Sci Syst Eng
concluded that this hypothesis, to some extent,
could be accepted.
Moreover, we found that there is a big
difference in the evaluation of research ability
and research environment as related to future
career paths as well as different research fields.
One of the important findings from the survey
was that students who wish to be researchers
evaluated their ability and the research
environment lower than those who wish to work
for companies, work for the government, or run
their own companies.
Another remarkable finding was the
difference in the evaluation of “Ability of
Enlightenment” in research fields of social
science, computer science, and natural science.
The self-assessment of social science students
was the most severe and natural science students
gave relatively high scores among the three
groups. This suggests that students in natural
sciences are often instructed by their supervising
advisers about research themes.
Because the respondents selected this time
were master’s students, the difference in the
evaluation due to the difference in experience of
writing a paper was not very large. We did notice
that students who wrote a paper exhibited higher
confidence than those who did not write a paper.
We examined the hypothesis that the scores of
“Ability” and “Environment” are correlated, but
this was rejected by the correlation analysis.
In the survey respondents provided a variety
of noteworthy opinions in the free description.
But due to space limitations, we could not discuss
all of them in this paper. We just introduce a few
opinions (requests) of the students about research
environment in the following:
15
• “In the very beginning, I would like to ask
professors and seniors to give me full
guidance from topic choosing to paper
modification.”
• “I need a useful tutorship system that shows
models of doing good research, introduces
good papers or websites, and explains the
project well which I should be involved.”
• “After I become familiar with all the
processes, I need proper supervision and a
relaxed research environment.”
• “I want a quiet and comfortable environment,
including computers and the Internet.”
• “I need an environment to allow extensive
discussion, in which I can learn about
different ideas and obtain good advice about
my research.”
When conducting a questionnaire survey for
students, it is necessary to expand to include
students of various grades in various fields. By
doing so, we can proceed with the validation and
modification of the proposed model, and
highlight the difference between ability
evaluation and environmental evaluation due to
differences in fields and experience.
Furthermore, it is also a challenge to pursue
the possibility of the second-round questionnaire
survey for the same respondents in order to
follow up the growth of the students and the
improvement of the research environment.
It is also interesting to create a question list
for supervisors and to see the difference in the
consciousness between students and faculty.
Through such activities, we would like to
contribute to the improvement of the quality of
education and research at graduate schools as
knowledge creation systems.
 Sun et al.: Modeling the Knowledge Creation Process of Graduate Research
16
9. Appendix
In this appendix the main questions in all
processes are presented.
Stage 1: Research planning
(1-E-A) Ability of enlightenment
Are you satisfied with your ability to plan
your research? (Do you have a lot of ideas and
experience to make your research plan?)
(1-E-E) Environment of enlightenment
When preparing your research plan, do you
receive sufficient guidance from your supervisors
or senior researchers? (Do you have a good
environment in your lab (in the university) to
make a research plan?)
(1-D-A) Ability of discussion
Are you satisfied with your ability to explain
your research plan? (Do you have a lot of ideas
and experience to explain your research plan?)
(1-D-E) Environment of discussion
When explaining your research plan, do you
receive sufficient guidance from your supervisors
or senior researchers? (Do you have a good
environment in your lab (in the university) to
discuss your research plan?)
(1-I-A) Ability of immersion
Are you satisfied with your ability to make
your group understand your research plan deeply?
(Do you have a lot of ideas and experience to
explain your research plan deeply in the group?)
(1-I-E) Environment of immersion
When discussing your research plan, do you
receive sufficient guidance from your supervisors
or senior researchers to elaborate your research
plan? (Do you have a good environment in your
lab (in the university) to elaborate your research
plan?)
(1-S-A) Ability of selection
Are you satisfied with your ability to select
J Syst Sci Syst Eng
good suggestions on your research plan? (Do you
have a lot of ideas and experience to select good
suggestions on your research plan?)
(1-S-E) Environment of selection
When selecting modified ideas about your
research plan, do you receive sufficient guidance
from your supervisors or senior researchers? (Do
you have a good environment in your lab (in the
university) to select ideas from your supervisors
or seniors?)
Stage 2: Research implementation
(2-E-A) Ability of enlightenment
Are you satisfied with your ability to plan
your actual research? (Do you know methods and
ways to perform your actual research?)
(2-E-E) Environment of enlightenment
When planning your actual research, do you
receive sufficient guidance from your supervisors
or senior researchers? (Do you have a good
environment in your lab (in the university) to plan
an actual research?)
(2-D-A) Ability of development
Are you satisfied with your ability to perform
your research? (Do you have a lot of ideas and
experience to perform your research?)
(2-D-E) Environment of development
When performing your research, do you
receive sufficient guidance from your supervisors
or senior researchers? (Do you have a good
environment in your lab (in the university) to
perform your research?)
(2-I-A) Ability of immersion
Are you satisfied with your ability to make
your group understand your research plan deeply?
(Do you have a lot of ideas and experience to
explain your research plan deeply in the group?)
(2-I-E) Environment of immersion
When discussing your research results, do you
Sun et al.: Modeling the Knowledge Creation Process of Graduate Research
J Syst Sci Syst Eng
receive sufficient guidance from your supervisors
or senior researchers? (Do you have a good
environment in your lab (in the university) to
discuss your research results?)
(2-S-A) Ability of selection
Are you satisfied with your ability to select
suggestions on your research result? (Do you
have a lot of ideas and experience to select
suggestions on your research result?)
(2-S-E) Environment of selection
When selecting modified ideas about your
research results, do you receive sufficient
guidance from your supervisors or senior
researchers? (Do you have a good environment in
your lab (in the university) to elaborate your
research?)
Stage 3: Research announcement
(3-E-A) Ability of enlightenment
Are you satisfied with your ability to write
research papers or prepare presentations? (Do
you know methods and ways to plan research
papers or presentations?)
(3-E-E) Environment of enlightenment
When writing research papers or preparing
presentations, do you receive sufficient guidance
from your supervisors or senior researchers? (Do
you have a good environment in your lab (in the
university) to prepare research papers or
presentations?)
(3-D-A) Ability of dissemination
Are you satisfied with your ability to explain
your research results in the academic society?
(Do you have a lot of ideas and experience to
explain your research results?)
(3-D-E) Environment of dissemination
When explaining your research, do you
receive sufficient guidance from your supervisors
or senior researchers? (Do you have a good
17
environment in your lab (in the university) to
explain your research results?)
(3-I-A) Ability of immersion
Are you satisfied with your ability to make the
academic society understand your research
results? (Do you have a lot of ideas and
experience to explain your research results in the
academic society?)
(3-I-E) Environment of immersion
When discussing your research results in
order to make them understand your research in
an academic society, do you receive sufficient
guidance from your supervisors or senior
researchers? (Do you have a good supporting
environment in your lab (in the university) to
discuss your research in an academic society?)
(3-S-A) Ability of selection
Are you satisfied with your ability to select
suggestions on your research from the academic
society? (Do you have a lot of ideas and
experience to select suggestions on your research
from the academic society?)
(3-S-E) Environment of selection
When selecting modified ideas about your
research results from the academic society, do
you receive sufficient guidance from your
supervisors or senior researchers? (Do you have
a good environment in your lab (in the university)
to elaborate your research based on the
suggestions from the academic society?)
10. Acknowledgments
We are very grateful to Professor Andrzej P.
Wierzbicki of the Polish National Institute of
Telecommunications for giving us a chance to
consider the creative models for graduate
students.
We also deeply thank Professor Shouyang
 Sun et al.: Modeling the Knowledge Creation Process of Graduate Research
18
Wang of the University of Chinese Academy of
Sciences for his kind support in carrying out the
survey.
Moreover, we deeply appreciate anonymous
reviewers who carefully read this paper and gave
valuable comments.
References
[1] Bereiter, C. (2002). Education and Mind in
the Knowledge Age. Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, Inc., Mahwah.
[2] Carroll, J.M., Choo, C.W., Dunlap, D.R. et
al. (2003). Knowledge management support
for teachers. Educational Technology
Research and Development, 51(4): 42-64.
[3] Cheng, E.C.K. (2012). Knowledge strategies
for enhancing school learning capacity.
International Journal of Education
Management, 26(6): 557-592.
[4] Chu, K.W., Wang, M. & Yuen, A.J.K. (2011).
Implementing knowledge management in
school environment: Teachers’ perception.
Knowledge Management & E-Learning: An
International Journal, 3(2): 139-152.
[5] Danate, M.J. & Canales, J.I. (2012). A new
approach to the concept of knowledge
strategy. Journal of Knowledge Management,
16(1): 22 - 44.
[6] Hamid, J. (2008). Knowledge strategies of
school administrators and teachers.
International Journal of Educational
Management, 22(2): 259–268.
[7] Harris, A. (2008). Leading innovation and
change: knowledge creation by schools for
schools. European Journal of Education,
43(2): 219-228.
[8] Knorr-Cetina, K. (1999). Epistemic Cultures:
How the Sciences Make Knowledge. Harvard
J Syst Sci Syst Eng
University Press, Cambridge.
[9] Joia, L.A. (2002). Assessing unqualified in-
service teacher training in Brazil using
knowledge management theory: A case study.
Journal of Knowledge Management, 6(1): 74-
86.
[10] Leung, C.H. (2010). Critical factors of
implementing knowledge management in
school environment: a qualitative study in
Hong Kong. Research Journal of Information
Technology, 2(2): 66-80.
[11] Nonaka, I. & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The
Knowledge-Creating Company: How
Japanese Companies Create the Dynamics of
Innovation. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
[12] Roger, F., Jennifer, R. & Rachel, D. (2013).
Knowledge sharing amongst academics in
UK universities. Journal of Knowledge
Management, 17(1): 123-136.
[13] Scardamalia, M. & Bereiter, C. (1999).
Schools as knowledge building organizations.
In Keating, D., Hertzman, C. (eds.), Today’s
Children, Tomorrow’s Society: The
Developmental Health and Wealth of Nations,
pp. 274-289. New York: Guilford.
[14] Scardamalia, M. & Bereiter, C. (2006).
Knowledge building: Theory, pedagogy, and
technology. In Sawyer, R.K. (ed.), The
Cambridge Handbook of the Learning
Sciences, pp. 97-118. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
[15] Sun, J., Nakamori, Y., Tian, J. & Xiang, J.W.
(2016). Exploring academic knowledge
creation models for graduate researches.
Proceedings of the 2016 IEEE International
Conference on Software Quality, Reliability
and Security, pp.202-209, Vienna, Austria,
August 1-3, 2016.
Sun et al.: Modeling the Knowledge Creation Process of Graduate Research
J Syst Sci Syst Eng
[16] Tian, J. & Nakamori, Y. (2006). A study of
knowledge creation support in a Japanese
research institute. International Journal of
Knowledge and Systems Sciences, 3(1): 7-17.
[17] Tian, J., Nakamori, Y. & Wierzbicki, A.P.
(2009). Knowledge management
knowledge creation in academia: a study
based on surveys in a Japanese research
university. Journal of Knowledge
Management, 13(2): 76-92.
[18] Twigg, C.A. (1994). The changing definition
of learning. Educom Review, 29(4): 23-25.
[19] Wang, J.X. & Jia, C.J. (2005). Education
knowledge management strategies to promote
teachers’ professional development. Science
& Technology Progress and Policy, 22(12):
159-161.
[20] Wierzbicki, A.P. & Nakamori, Y. (2006).
Creative Space: Models of Creative Processes
for the Knowledge Civilization
Springer-Verlag, Berlin.
[21] Wu, W.L., Lee, Y.C. & Shu, H.S. (2013).
Knowledge management in education
organization: a perspective of knowledge
spiral. The International Journal
Organizational Innovation, 5(4): 7-13.
[22] Yeh, Y.M.C. (2005). The implementation of
knowledge management system in Taiwan’s
higher education. Journal of College Teaching
& Learning, 2(9): 35-42.
[23] Zack, M.H. (2002). Developing a knowledge
strategy. California Management Review,
41(3): 125-145.
[24] Zhao, J. (2010). School knowledge
management framework and strategies: the
new perspective on teacher professional
development. Computers in Human Behavior,
26(2): 168-175.
19
Jing Sun is a doctoral student of School of
Knowledge Science, Japan Advanced Institute of
Science and Technology. She has been studying
knowledge management and systems sciences.
Her research interest is the development of
and knowledge creation models to support graduate
students to promote research confidently.
Jing Tian is an associate professor at School of
Computer Science and Technology, Wuhan
University of Technology, China. She received a
PhD in knowledge science from Japan Advanced
Institute of Science and Technology in 2006. Her
recent research interest includes knowledge
management, knowledge engineering, soft
engineering and systems methodology.
Van-Nam Huynh is an associate professor at
Japan Advanced Institute of Science and
Age. Technology, Japan. He received a PhD in applied
mathematics (1999) from the Institute of
Information Technology, Vietnam Academy of
Science and Technology, and a “Habilitation à
Diriger des Recherches” (2012) at Université de
of Technologie de Compiègne, France. He was a
post-doctoral fellow (2001–2002) awarded by
Inoue Foundation for Science at Japan Advanced
Institute of Science and Technology. His research
interests include decision theories, computing
and reasoning with words, information fusion,
kansei information processing and application,
data mining and recommender systems. Currently
he is a member of the Editorial Board of the
International Journal of Approximate Reasoning
(Elsevier) and an associate editor of the
International Journal of Knowledge and Systems
Science (IGI Global).
 Sun et al.: Modeling the Knowledge Creation Process of Graduate Research
20 J Syst Sci Syst Eng

Yoshiteru Nakamori received a PhD degree in

applied mathematics and physics from Kyoto
University in January 1980. He joined Japan
Advanced Institute of Science and Technology in
1998 as a professor of School of Knowledge
Science. Since then, he has been working on
development of knowledge systems methodology,
incorporating the approaches of complex systems,
and its application to environmental issues. His
recent research interest is the theory of
knowledge creation systems, which integrates
approaches in systems science and knowledge
management. From November 2003 to December
2008, he served as the president of the
International Society for Knowledge and Systems
Sciences. Since April 2010, he has been a fellow
of the International Academy for Systems and
Cybernetics Sciences.